Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh Eduaction ANDWelfare Infrastructure v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Feb 2014WA/119/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ appeal is not maintainable against an interim direction passed by the Single Judge at the admission stage. Citing Midnapore Cooperatives Bank, the Court ruled that routine interlocutory orders do not affect final rights. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; liberty granted to file vacate stay petition.

Andhra Pradesh Eduaction ANDWelfare Infrastructure… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No.119 of 2014

¶4

DATE: 03.02.2014

¶5

Between:

¶6

Andhra Pradesh Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corpn. .. Appellant

¶7

and

¶8

1. Govt. of A.P. 2. Y.V.V.Vara Prasad .. Respondents

¶9

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶10

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.2013 in W.P.No. 31738 of 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶11

The learned Single Judge, while ordering Notice Before Admission, made the following interlocutory order:

¶12

“There shall be interim direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer without reference to the disciplinary proceedings connected with the proceedings No.E1/2712/MD/APEWIDC/06, dated 06.03.2013.”

¶13

This Court, while dealing with a similar matter in W.A.No.1932 of 2013, which was preferred against an interlocutory order, dismissed the appeal in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-

¶14

operative Bank Ltd., & others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others^[1] by making the following observation:

¶15

“Writ appeal against an interim order is not maintainable inasmuch as the interim order / interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Ltd., & others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and other s^[2] is a routine order which has not attained its finality but to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment, and moreover, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the interim order may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, be it the Government or the individual, but the rights and obligations of the parties are not finally determined. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, which definitely falls under categories (iv) & (v) of paragraph 15 of the judgment cited supra, does not affect the rights and obligations of any of the parties since the learned Single Judge expressed only a prima facie view in the matter which requires further consideration. The

¶16

proper course for the appellant is to make its submissions and state the facts and law before the learned Single Judge and the merits of the respective contentions need to be gone into during the course of hearing the writ petition. Therefore, the interim order falling under categories (iv) and (v) is not a “judgment” for the purpose of filing appeal as provided under the Letters Patent.”

¶17

The relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court at paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 are extracted as under for better appreciation:

¶18

15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories:

¶19

(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

¶20

(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case.

¶21

(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case.

¶22

(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.

¶23

(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

¶24

16. The term “judgment” occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, “judgments” for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not “judgments” for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent. (Emphasis added)

¶25

Further, it is to be taken note of that a statutory provision is made available to the appellant-Corporation to file a petition seeking vacation of the interim direction given

¶26

by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore’s case as enumerate above and having regard to the fact that there is statutory provision as may be available to the appellant for filing vacate stay petition, we are of the considered opinion that this Writ Appeal is not maintainable since it is only an Appeal against the interim / interlocutory order which was particularly passed at the admission stage pending further orders.

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the appellant - Corporation to take appropriate steps before the learned Single Judge by way of filing Vacate Stay Petition. No order as to costs.

¶29

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶30

_________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶31

03.02.2014

¶32

______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶33

bcj

¶34

[1] AIR 2006 supreme court 2190 [2] AIR 2006 supreme court 2190

Andhra Pradesh Eduaction ANDWelfare Infrastructure v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh Eduaction ANDWelfare Infrastructure v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teh Commissioner of Wealth Tax a.P-I Hyd Vs Trustees of Prince Mouzam Jah Trust Hyd.

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Sb Rasheedunnisa Begum

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Vs N.M. Kodandapani

Commissioner of Wealth tax-Vi, Hyderabad. Vs Sb. Nazeebunnisa Begum

Commissioner of Wealth-tax-Vi, Vs Sb. Haleema Begum

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vi, Hyderabad. Vs Nb.Namdar Ali Khan